EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:22 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Nice! Perhaps you should have studied mainline particle physics as you might have obtained a job working with Bell in the theory division at CERN?

Perhaps. But Bell's day job at CERN was actually accelerator designs. It had little to do with mainline particle physics (although he did write one paper on the so-called Bell-Jackiw anomaly). That kind of almost experimental work did not interest me as a young man. I was too ambitious and already finishing my Ph.D. under Shimony in foundations of quantum mechanics when I wrote to Bell about a job at CERN.

***

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:58 pm

Nice! Perhaps you should have studied mainline particle physics as you might have obtained a job working with Bell in the theory division at CERN?
.

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:39 am

***
I have a handwritten letter from John S. Bell, addressed to me. But rather foolishly, I had kept it on display in my office at the Perimeter Institute near a big glass window. So his words are all faded out in the bright sunlight of Canada (England is always cloudy by comparision). Fortunately, the letter is still readable. Here is what it says:

Image

***

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:36 am

Joy Christian wrote:
minkwe wrote:
Bell's interview in Omni magazine from 1988 is interesting.
http://www.housevampyr.com/training/lib ... 988_05.pdf

See page 38.

I have printed it out and reading it.

By the way, here is a nice snap of John S. Bell and Abner Shimony (my Ph.D. mentor).

Guess who took this snap? Hint: It was taken during a historic conference on the foundations of quantum physics, held on Mount Erice, Sicily, 1989.

Image
***

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:58 am

minkwe wrote:
Bell's interview in Omni magazine from 1988 is interesting.
http://www.housevampyr.com/training/lib ... 988_05.pdf

See page 38.

I have printed it out and reading it.

***

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by minkwe » Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:39 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Bell's junk physics theory is not a mathematical theorem!

Bell's theorem is a dream which evaporates in the cold light of day! :)

It is a poetry that falls flat on the deaf ears of cold reality! :)

(cf. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf)

***

Bell's interview in Omni magazine from 1988 is interesting.
http://www.housevampyr.com/training/lib ... 988_05.pdf

See page 38.

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:12 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Bell's junk physics theory is not a mathematical theorem!

Bell's theorem is a dream which evaporates in the cold light of day! :)

It is a poetry that falls flat on the deaf ears of cold reality! :)

(cf. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf)

***

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:05 am

Bell's junk physics theory is not a mathematical theorem!
.

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by gill1109 » Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:58 am

Yablon wrote:Well, I am in fact using U(1) unitary measurement functions which evolve as a result of the act of measuring the angular momentum packets from each singlet split to the observed readings while maintaining the singlet correlation with locality. The math in the paper Richard cites seems more complicated and I have yet to take a detailed look at it, but it is possible this approach is not inconsistent with my own. Jay

PS: I am starting to write up my approach into a paper which in contrast to the 50+ page work I have been preparing since February, could end up well under 10 pages with only the absolute essentials. I will spend a few hours working on this during my flight home later today.


I'm sure these approaches are entirely consistent. Assume standard quantum mechanics but avoid any collapse hypothesis. Define "reality" and "locality" in ways which correspond to your assumed picture of reality. Prove with impeccable mathematics that quantum mechanics (wihout "collapse") is local and realistic.

It's called assuming what you want to prove. It has been done many times in the past, often using impressive technical machinery. Niels Bohr already knew this and knew it was a waste of time. Remember, that was the guy who said: "the opposite of a truth is a lie, but the opposite of a fundamental truth can often be another fundamental truth". Seriously, there is a lot in what he said.

The facts are not changed. Bell chanced upon an elementary mathematical theorem which is a true and elementary theorem in theoretical computer science, also in approximation theory, also in functional analysis, and also in discrete mathematics. The only hope for those who find it distasteful is to circumvent it by changing the definitions or the axioms or the underlying logical system. I can give you examples of all these different strategies (or coping mechanisms). Christian himself used to be well aware of this fact. However, over the years, he has developed a strong belief in his own infallibility which makes him completely insulated from contradictory facts. The first step such people take is often the belief in a conspiracy theory of an establishment intent on destroying your ideas. I was a mere pawn, a henchman, of the real illuminati.

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by Yablon » Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:52 am

gill1109 wrote:Here's an exciting new development, very relevant to Jay Yablon's project. https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.042115 https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.12229

My emphasis added to the abstract below

A representation of the wave function on the three-dimensional space
Ovidiu Cristinel Stoica
(Submitted on 28 Jun 2019 (v1), last revised 21 Oct 2019 (this version, v2))
One of the major concerns of Schrödinger, Lorentz, Einstein, and many others about the wave function is that it is defined on the 3N-dimensional configuration space, rather than on the 3-dimensional physical space. This gives the impression that quantum mechanics cannot have a three-dimensional space or spacetime ontology, even in the absence of quantum measurements. In particular, this seems to affect interpretations which take the wave function as a physical entity, in particular the many worlds and the spontaneous collapse interpretations, and some versions of the pilot wave theory.
Here, a representation of the many-particle states is given, as multi-layered fields defined on the 3-dimensional physical space. This representation is equivalent to the usual representation on the configuration space, but it makes it explicit that it is possible to interpret the wave functions as defined on the physical space. As long as only unitary evolution is involved, the interactions are local [Emphasis RDG]. I intended this representation to capture and formalize the non-explicit and informal intuition of many working quantum physicists, who, by considering the wave function sometimes to be defined on the configuration space, and sometimes on the physical space, may seem to researchers in the foundations of quantum theory as adopting an inconsistent view about its ontology. This representation does not aim to solve the measurement problem, and it allows for Schrödinger cats just like the usual one. But it may help various interpretations to solve these problems, through inclusion of the wave function as (part of) their primitive ontology.
In an appendix, it is shown how the multi-layered field representation can be extended to quantum field theory.

Well, I am in fact using U(1) unitary measurement functions which evolve as a result of the act of measuring the angular momentum packets from each singlet split to the observed readings while maintaining the singlet correlation with locality. The math in the paper Richard cites seems more complicated and I have yet to take a detailed look at it, but it is possible the this approach is not inconsistent with my own. Jay

PS: I am starting to write up my approach into a paper which in contrast to the 50+ page work I have been preparing since February, could end up well under 10 pages with only the absolute essentials. I will spend a few hours working on this during my flight home later today.

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by gill1109 » Sun Oct 27, 2019 2:22 am

Here's an exciting new development, very relevant to Jay Yablon's project. https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.042115 https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.12229

My emphasis added to the abstract below

A representation of the wave function on the three-dimensional space
Ovidiu Cristinel Stoica
(Submitted on 28 Jun 2019 (v1), last revised 21 Oct 2019 (this version, v2))
One of the major concerns of Schrödinger, Lorentz, Einstein, and many others about the wave function is that it is defined on the 3N-dimensional configuration space, rather than on the 3-dimensional physical space. This gives the impression that quantum mechanics cannot have a three-dimensional space or spacetime ontology, even in the absence of quantum measurements. In particular, this seems to affect interpretations which take the wave function as a physical entity, in particular the many worlds and the spontaneous collapse interpretations, and some versions of the pilot wave theory.
Here, a representation of the many-particle states is given, as multi-layered fields defined on the 3-dimensional physical space. This representation is equivalent to the usual representation on the configuration space, but it makes it explicit that it is possible to interpret the wave functions as defined on the physical space. As long as only unitary evolution is involved, the interactions are local [Emphasis RDG]. I intended this representation to capture and formalize the non-explicit and informal intuition of many working quantum physicists, who, by considering the wave function sometimes to be defined on the configuration space, and sometimes on the physical space, may seem to researchers in the foundations of quantum theory as adopting an inconsistent view about its ontology. This representation does not aim to solve the measurement problem, and it allows for Schrödinger cats just like the usual one. But it may help various interpretations to solve these problems, through inclusion of the wave function as (part of) their primitive ontology.
In an appendix, it is shown how the multi-layered field representation can be extended to quantum field theory.

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by gill1109 » Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:10 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
No, I will not give my opinion on your questions regarding this. I will not help you out. Publish your paper in a peer-reviewed journal. I will then respond accordingly.

***

I found a suitable journal for your mathematical paper: Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras, https://link.springer.com/journal/6. How is it going with its publication?

My paper is being processed. I'll let you know when there is news. Of course I proposed Joy Christian as one of the referees.

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:09 pm

***
No, I will not give my opinion on your questions regarding this. I will not help you out. Publish your paper in a peer-reviewed journal. I will then respond accordingly.

***

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by gill1109 » Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:56 pm

Oh dear Joy, while we are waiting, do please just give us your opinion on this question:

Over the real numbers, is the even subalgebra of Cl(4, 0) isomorphic to Cl(0, 3)?

Wikipedia says so, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_algebra#Grading. But of course, Wikipedia can be wrong.

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:00 am

***
I will wait until your viXra paper passes peer-review. Until then, if someone wants to believe your arguments without reading my papers you are criticizing, then so be it.

***

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by gill1109 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:49 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
I have some sympathy for Richard Gill's struggle with the arXiv moderation, even though I do not think his current paper criticizing my work is a serious paper with sound arguments. In the past, I too had difficulties with the arXiv moderation because of their blanket policy of rejecting any paper that criticizes Bell's theorem. For example, the preprint of my RSOS paper was not accepted by the arXiv moderators. They had asked me to first publish the paper in a respectable journal before submitting to the arXiv. Fortunately, my paper was accepted by RSOS and then the moderators had no choice but to accept the preprint version of it. Their policies, however, have become more coherent lately after they conducted a major survey of their readers and systematized their moderation procedures.

***

Here is a slight revision of my earlier posting on Christian's pure maths paper, in preparation for the symposium debate. The latest version of my paper containing my items for debate is https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/GA.pdf. This revision is being processed at viXra. No news from arXiv on the moderation.

Christian argues that the 8-dimensional real and associative Clifford algebra Cl(0, 3), which is the even subalgebra of Cl(4, 0) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_algebra#Grading) is a division algebra. I believe that it is not. I think that this question can be decided objectively. See Christian's RSOS paper or his "pure mathematics paper" https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06172

One can take as vector space basis for the 8 dimensional real vector space Cl(0, 3) the scalar 1, three vectors, three bivectors, and the pseudo-scalar. According to the definition of Clifford algebras, the three vectors square to -1. Take any unit bivector . It satisfies hence . If the space could be given a norm such that the norm of a product is the product of the norms, we would have hence either or (or both), hence either or (or both), implying that v = 1 or v = -1.

Recall that a normed division algebra is an algebra that is also a normed vector space and such that the norm of a product is the product of the norms; a division algebra is an algebra such that if a product of two elements equals zero, then at least one of the two elements concerned must be zero.

Perhaps Joy can tell us exactly what he disagrees with here. For instance, let's take it step by step:

1. Over the real numbers, is the even subalgebra of Cl(4, 0) isomorphic to Cl(0, 3)?

2. In Cl(0, 3), the basis vectors e_1, e_2 and e_3 anti-commute and square to -1. The algebra is associative. I can define the pseudoscalar M = e_1 e_2 e_3. It follows that M^2 = -1. I can define three bivectors v_1, v_2 and v_3 by v_i = M e_i. They anticommute and square to +1.

3. As a real vector space one can take the basis of Cl(0, 3) to be 1 (the scalar), the three basis vectors e_i, the three basis bivectors v_i, and the pseudo-scalar M.

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:18 pm

***
I have some sympathy for Richard Gill's struggle with the arXiv moderation, even though I do not think his current paper criticizing my work is a serious paper with sound arguments. In the past, I too had difficulties with the arXiv moderation because of their blanket policy of rejecting any paper that criticizes Bell's theorem. For example, the preprint of my RSOS paper was not accepted by the arXiv moderators. They had asked me to first publish the paper in a respectable journal before submitting to the arXiv. Fortunately, my paper was accepted by RSOS and then the moderators had no choice but to accept the preprint version of it. Their policies, however, have become more coherent lately after they conducted a major survey of their readers and systematized their moderation procedures.

***

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by gill1109 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:28 pm

local wrote:
gill1109 wrote: I am now having a long discussion with arXiv moderation minions. I think that their strategy is to be so illogically stupid, and ask such stupid questions, that I get angry, lose my cool, and thereby prove that they were correct to suppress my contribution to science.

Classic thinking, if someone disagrees with me they must be illogically stupid. Go for viXra, Richard, it's more your style. ;)

I'm author of 1 article on viXra. It is under review with a serious journal. If you have new comments on it, please raise them here: http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0102
The paper contains some of the points I will be raising in my debate with Joy Christian or one of his supporters, at our symposium. Joy's responses are already well known.
Obviously, anyone who disagrees with me without a sound logical argument for their point of view, is illogically stupid. That's an axiom, whose validity is confirmed for me, daily.

I'm registered as the author of 53 articles on arXiv. Most of them have appeared in peer-reviewed papers.

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by local » Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:19 am

gill1109 wrote: I am now having a long discussion with arXiv moderation minions. I think that their strategy is to be so illogically stupid, and ask such stupid questions, that I get angry, lose my cool, and thereby prove that they were correct to suppress my contribution to science.

Classic thinking, if someone disagrees with me they must be illogically stupid. Go for viXra, Richard, it's more your style. ;)

Re: EPR / Bell Symposium Announcement

Post by gill1109 » Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:58 pm

local wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Vixra has now accepted this first revision.

Congratulations Richard! We all know how hard it is to be accepted by viXra. Just ask George Rajna. :lol:

http://vixra.org/author/george_rajna

Richard rubbing shoulders with the greats!

Yeah!!!!

But I must say, if I see further than others it is only because I am surrounded by dwarves.

I am now having a long discussion with arXiv moderation minions. I think that their strategy is to be so illogically stupid, and ask such stupid questions, that I get angry, lose my cool, and thereby prove that they were correct to suppress my contribution to science.

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library